MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324145367 · doi:10.1163/25425552-12340036

Maunaṃ Sammatilakṣaṇam? The Eligibility of Women for Vedic Study in Dvaita Vedānta

2023· article· en· W4324145367 on OpenAlexaff
Anusha S Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of South Asian Intellectual History · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian and Buddhist Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVedasDoctrineOpenness to experienceAmbiguityPhilosophyHinduismTheologySociologyPsychologyLinguisticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The traditional schools of Vedānta agree that women do not have the eligibility for Vedic study and ritual performance. However, commentators of Vedānta traditions must contend with references to women who are seers and learners in the Vedas. Madhva (1238–1317), the founder of Dvaita Vedānta, lays down a special category of superior (uttama) women who possess the eligibility for Vedic study. But does this category include human women, or is it limited to divine beings? This paper traces the history of shifts in the doctrine of eligibility as envisioned in the writings of major Mādhva thinkers in commentarial literature, arguing that commentators from the sixteenth century attempted to close down an earlier openness and ambiguity in the doctrine, thereby excluding human women from a special category, that would, in theory, allow them access to the Vedas.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of South Asian Intellectual HistorySame topicIndian and Buddhist StudiesFrench-language works237,207